Comparison of Acute Followed by Maintenance ECT vs Clozapine on Psychopathology and Regional Cerebral Blood Flow in Treatment-Resistant Schizophrenia: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESIS: In treatment-resistant schizophrenia (TRS), Clozapine is only approved treatment with undesirable side-effects, warranting better alternatives. Our hypothesis is acute followed by maintenance Electroconvulsive Therapy (M-ECT) will be comparable in efficacy and safety to Clozapine in TRS. STUDY DESIGN: In this open-label trial, 60 TRS patients were randomized equally to M-ECT (following an acute-course) or Clozapine. Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS), Clinical Global Impression Schizophrenia Scale (CGI-SCH), Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), and Global assessment of functioning (GAF) were measured and compared within and between the groups at baseline, 6 weeks, 12 weeks, and 24 weeks. SPECT-CT brain was done at baseline and 24 weeks to compare the changes in regional cerebral perfusion between the groups and correlate with the changes in the outcome-measures. STUDY RESULTS: The PANSS-T scores changes from baseline over the observation-points were significant in both M-ECT and clozapine groups (P < .001), with comparatively better reduction with M-ECT (P < .001). Similar trends were observed in PANSS subscales, CGI-SCH and GAF in both groups, with significantly better improvement with M-ECT over the study-period. After 24 weeks, there was significantly better perfusion with M-ECT in bilateral prefrontal and temporal cortices (P < .05). With M-ECT, a positive correlation was found between changes in PANSS-P scores and left-lateral Temporal cortical perfusion (r = .465, P = .017). CONCLUSIONS: Acute followed by M-ECT was more effective than clozapine over 6 months in reducing the positive and negative symptoms, general psychopathology, illness-severity, and improving the global functionality in TRS [clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03807882].
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".